By Prof Dr Mohd Tajuddin Mohd Rasdi

I wish to explain clearly my idea of freedom of speech within my conception of a moral construct. I am not a student of political science or political history and have never researched the philosophical and historical development of the issues of 'liberalism' or 'freedom of speech'. I understand liberalism as being able to interpret religious, cultural or political practices, attitudes, statements and history within a different intellectual construct free from the shackles of any dogma. I understand also that freedom of speech is the basic and fundamental right of the individual to make his or her statement concerning any issue of importance to those who hold the power of governance. These two anchors of society is absolutely necessary if any nation, race or peoples want to be matured and civilized societies rather than a people subjected to the blind dictates of historical or religious authorities. I believe that as a Muslim, this belief is reemphasized many times in my understanding of the corpus of hadiths and Qur'anic Verses.

Where I draw the line of liberalism and freedom of speech is in the manner of 'adab' that it is being phrased in. Some countries allow vulgarities to be thrown at leadership personalities as long as there is no threat to life or intention to cause physical harm. I believe that in my Malaysia we must include a cultural and a moral harm within the construct of these liberties under a democracy. I do not and never shall condone any kind of freedom of speech laced in vulgarities or any term which the society considers vulgar. By using vulgarities, it shows that the speaker has a mind that has been fuddled with hatred, contempt and disrespect to the person being addressed.

I have written before that freedom of speech must come with wisdom to speak rather than the right to say things. Many a time wisdom entails us the great understanding not to utter a single word even against a barrage of vulgarities thrown at us. Imam Ghazali even says that the person who choose to refrain from responding on an argument bent on creating great mischief is the true winner in the sight of Allah as it will bring in the greater good rather than a selfish and personal win to an argument.

I have also written that freedom of speech must be made in a clear and courteous manner or 'adab' to anyone and especially so to those we treat as elders or leaders. We must use a certain language in addressing different persons in society according to the social standing of the person addressed.

I have reprimanded MPs for using the four letter word in Parliament and asked that his salary be deducted for the offense. I have also reprimanded a political youth leader for letting his followers make fun of the name of a Chinese female MP by equating her name with a vulgar Malay word. I do not tolerate such behaviors from anyone who disrespect the dignity of any persons regardless of race, religion or station in society.

I am proud to be known as a 'liberal' thinker in many issues of architecture, Islam and Malay society. But many have used this label as a sneer to my ideas because I go against the grain and is deemed to be disloyal to race and religion. But I have never been vulgar in my statements and have always phrased my arguments and supports from hadiths or Qur'anic Verses or from historical figures in my deliberations.

However, there are Malaysians who think that we must have the exact same qualities of liberalism and freedom of speech as practiced by other 'advanced countries'. I think such drastic view will unnecessarily create tensions between an already tensed racial and religious relationship in this country. I think that we have to couched the important ideas of liberalism and freedom of speech within our own cultural and moral template and not use other countries as our yardstick.

I do not condone the murders of the Charley Hebbdo shootings because of a cartoon caricature of the Prophet. But I would like a Malaysia that respects religious and societal figures and understand the cultural and religious sensitivities involved. Lat has drawn many political leaders that made his editors have ulcers but his portrayal was meaningful and never vulgar. Lat has drawn stereotyped racial characters but his portrayal managed to educate in a sharing of humor by all races. This is the kind of liberalism and freedom of expression par excellence within the mold of our society. Lat never drew and image of deity or prophets in a manner that can be construed as derogatory. I understand political satires as expressed by the Western cultural norms and have no issues with them on a personal ground. But when such practices are placed within a volatile Malaysian socio-political construct, we must act with wisdom and not blind idealism.

Finally, I wish to say that I support freedom of speech and liberal views because these are the cornerstones of civilized and matured society. However, it would be most constructive if we were to leave vulgarities and insensitive remarks in making an important statement about an issue and addressed to particular individuals as well as leaders. Decorum is an art understood by refined citizenry. I am for a Malaysia that each citizen gives due dignity in addressing another citizen or individual regardless of race, religion or status in society. It will then be a Malaysia that I can call an intelligent and a moral-rich home.

(Professor Dr. Mohd Tajuddin Mohd Rasdi is Professor at a local university.)